Proposal: No Sense in Letting Good Food Go to Waste
Reached quorum and enacted, 3-0. Josh
Adminned at 14 Aug 2023 15:31:00 UTC
In the rule “Upsides and Downsides”, replace “Lose 1 Food, or lose 3 Food instead if your Defences are less than 1” with:
Lose 1 Food if your Defences are 0, or lose 3 Food instead if your Defences are less than 0
Uphold Josh’s loss of only 1 Food when he Reacted to Dilemma #10 with “Unearth”.
Right now Dilemmas are twice as likely to have “losing 1 Food” for a Downside compared to any other Downside, which seems a little unbalanced towards food loss. This tempers it down somewhat.
Also, Josh may not have been paying attention when choosing “Unearth”, as he clearly only subtracted 1 from his Food, not aware that he should have subtracted 3 instead, so I’m offering a little bribe for him to vote for this Proposal.
i’m not okay with reverting a downside to a null result, even if i get benefitted by it for having ≥1 defences! plus, a high probability of food loss makes sense narratively. food’s real important :0
on personal grounds, will support an amendment to cover null results
JonathanDark: he/him
For the rest of us who have greater than 0 Defences, think of this as an investment into preventing future food loss when this Downside comes up.